Where IQ comes into sharp focus is the 10 percent of the world's population whose IQ is below what is required to have minimal capabilities to sustain themselves - as in Sub-Saharan Africa. And they lean toward far greater criminality, because they are incapable of thinking even two steps ahead. Think Zimbabwe, where they murdered and ran off the white farmers who were producing all of the food, so they ended up begging for aid just a few years later. And now what's going on in South Africa, where they seem incapable of learning from what happened to their neighbors. It's a difficult task figuring out how to deal with these people in anything resembling a humane way, aside from just leaving them alone to suffer the consequences of their own lack of intelligence and self control.
I think one generation is too short. If you look at Haiti etc, if you give a "society" enough time, they start self-selecting for genes associated with intelligence, either from their own or from imported environments. For example in Caribbean islands with very few pure whites, a lot of upper class is mulatto. Like Kamala Harris's dad who eventually became a Stanford professor.
It would take several generations where the mean IQ is below 70. I remember reading a professor's evaluation when he actually traveled to this area because he couldn't believe their mean IQ was said to be around 75 and what he found was that it was worse than that. Europeans have enabled these people to procreate beyond what they can self-sustain. And it surely has come back to bite them.
Enjoyed the video. My only quibble is that you seemed (to me) to give the impression that not only do nature and nurture contribute to IQ, but that they contribute relatively equally. It's a shame the subject is so taboo that the research necessary to determine the relative importance hasn't been done (or hasn't been disseminated). When the dust settles, my bet is on nature >> nurture.
It may be indeed 50:50* if you include all the Global South and the dysfunctional Dem-ruled inner cities. The poblem in identical twin adoption studies, from where the data on heredity comes is that they are adopted into near-best nurture environments. So there, the variation in nurture is probably small. Instead, a third component - randomness, makes, probably, a strong non-nature, non-nurture contribution. However, due to experimental design it gets subsumed as "nurture".
*My pet assumption is that the breakdown is actually 50:15:35 for genes, chance and nurture in an environment where nurture is very diverse. If nurture is very near-best, the distribution an become 50:15:5, so something like 70% genetic.
The video will likely be very effective for those not already knowledgeable, or who have uncritically accepted the narrative that there is something problematic about discussing IQ. Looking at it, they will wonder "so what was all the fuss about?"
I predict that the insouciant approach will enrage a certain type. I'm looking forward to the sputtering.
But tbh I'm a lot less sanguine about the potential for genetic optimization, because I don't think humans are capable of making objective decisions about these things. I'm not even sure that it would be *possible* for us to be objective in regards to what phenotype is optimal.
Seems like a majority of high-IQ people believe race is a social construct, men can get pregnant, and the media is a reliable source of truth. So, yes, I share your pessimism.
The central limit theorem (eg proven by Alan Turing) says that whatever the actual probability distribution, if you add enough of them together, the outcome becomes like a Gaussian. However, I am not sure if enough of them are added. I think with von Neumanns, there might be a thick right tail, so 6SD doesn't capture it correctly.
Following up on my previous comment, it's pretty well accepted from studies of monozygotic twins raised apart that 50 - 80% of IQ is inherited (near the higher percentage by adulthood as environment seems to play a larger role for children). So, I think the current evidence supports the conclusion that nature is ultimately more important than nurture in determining IQ. The fact that polygenic scores don't yet have the power to identify all of the SNPs involved in influencing IQ, doesn't mean genetics isn't paramount. We wait for much larger GWAS studies... but, at present, there are influential folks at the NIH who appear fearful of what science will find, so they're busy throwing sticks into the spokes of such efforts.
Important to remember that none of this is remotely new.
People have noticed that other people are variously bright or dim since the dawn of consciousness. And people have known that this--along with other physical and mental characteristics--was an inherited trait that ran in families. (There was a family we'll call B--Germanic name, Cincinnati Catholics are a fairly Germanic bunch--with several kids in my parish school, and they were all on the dim side and the kids got some ribbing as a result.)
The huge racial ethnic differences weren't something most people in the world had experience with, because most people historically live with their own kind. But in the imperial cities and especially once Europeans opened up the world, many people encountered and noted the strong ethnic differences in intelligence and other personality traits. Places where two divergent races were in contact--like the American South--basically everyone was well aware of innate racial differences.
Steve's core noticing niche, only exists because a bunch of Jewish communist and/or minoritarian anti-science "scientists" (canonical example Stephen J. Gould) made war against biology, genetics, against science itself. They were/are not scientists but anti-science minoritarian propagandists. But their "findings" were endlessly repeated and promoted by fellow travelers in media. (A object lesson in the perils of letting a hostile minority group gain influence in your nation.) And then pumped out by the gianormous, post-1945 dominant, American media-academia-political-entertainment sewer pipe to pollute the rest of the Western world.
The minoritarian ideology was built by American Jews, but narratively built around the experience--slavery, Jim Crow--of American blacks, as Jewish complaints about America--Harvard quotas, the Golfocaust--while exciting to some Jews, are way too trivial to move anyone else. So minoritarians--and a whole lot of super-state intervention, grift and comfy sinecures--are narratively wedded to blacks and really invested in blacks' inferior situation being the result of evil, racist whites (like me) and really hostile to the "hey, not everyone is born with the same toolkit" explanation.
Absent, all this toxic minoritarian ideology, Steve's little bailiwick really wouldn't exist. Most everyone would agree that both people and groups differ in their native endowments. And there would be a general societal consensus both that we should provide schooling to get the most from everyone. And--perhaps with a bit more contention--that we ought to have pro-eugenic policies: the capable should have children, those who can't take care of themselves without taxpayers pitching in should not.
> Following up on my previous comment, it's pretty well accepted from studies of monozygotic twins raised apart that 50 - 80% of IQ is inherited (near the higher percentage by adulthood as environment seems to play a larger role for children). So, I think the current evidence supports the conclusion that nature is ultimately more important than nurture in determining IQ. <
There actually is no fixed percentage/answer for the nature/nurture contributions. How much is nature depends on the range of nurture you are comparing (i.e. the variety of environments in the society or sample you are comparing).
If baby Isaac Newton is proverbially "raised by wolves", he isn't going to do very well on an IQ test and "man off the street" who at least learned to read and write and do basic math will look like a genius in comparison. If your environments range out to severe nutritional stunting and/or complete lack of educational exposure for significant portions of your sample than "nurture" will dominate.
But for the contemporary United States--developed world in general--with plenty of calories and protein and universal education available for all, then yes, I think you're on target--well over half, probably close to 80% of the differences are due to nature. (When these annoying Christian do-gooders do their adopt-an-African-baby thing, the result isn't "one of their kids", but a very well fed, English speaking African.)
Furthermore we don't really have much of a handle on where the 20% "nurture" comes from. Sibling "shared environment"--playing the "baby einstein" tapes and such--seems to account for almost nothing. The "nurture" piece seems to be relatively random, perhaps simply "life path"--the intra-family dynamics and maybe peer group associations that lead a person one way or another. Or maybe even developmental biology randomness that we simply do not understand.
Where IQ comes into sharp focus is the 10 percent of the world's population whose IQ is below what is required to have minimal capabilities to sustain themselves - as in Sub-Saharan Africa. And they lean toward far greater criminality, because they are incapable of thinking even two steps ahead. Think Zimbabwe, where they murdered and ran off the white farmers who were producing all of the food, so they ended up begging for aid just a few years later. And now what's going on in South Africa, where they seem incapable of learning from what happened to their neighbors. It's a difficult task figuring out how to deal with these people in anything resembling a humane way, aside from just leaving them alone to suffer the consequences of their own lack of intelligence and self control.
I think one generation is too short. If you look at Haiti etc, if you give a "society" enough time, they start self-selecting for genes associated with intelligence, either from their own or from imported environments. For example in Caribbean islands with very few pure whites, a lot of upper class is mulatto. Like Kamala Harris's dad who eventually became a Stanford professor.
It would take several generations where the mean IQ is below 70. I remember reading a professor's evaluation when he actually traveled to this area because he couldn't believe their mean IQ was said to be around 75 and what he found was that it was worse than that. Europeans have enabled these people to procreate beyond what they can self-sustain. And it surely has come back to bite them.
Enjoyed the video. My only quibble is that you seemed (to me) to give the impression that not only do nature and nurture contribute to IQ, but that they contribute relatively equally. It's a shame the subject is so taboo that the research necessary to determine the relative importance hasn't been done (or hasn't been disseminated). When the dust settles, my bet is on nature >> nurture.
It may be indeed 50:50* if you include all the Global South and the dysfunctional Dem-ruled inner cities. The poblem in identical twin adoption studies, from where the data on heredity comes is that they are adopted into near-best nurture environments. So there, the variation in nurture is probably small. Instead, a third component - randomness, makes, probably, a strong non-nature, non-nurture contribution. However, due to experimental design it gets subsumed as "nurture".
*My pet assumption is that the breakdown is actually 50:15:35 for genes, chance and nurture in an environment where nurture is very diverse. If nurture is very near-best, the distribution an become 50:15:5, so something like 70% genetic.
My guess is that nature puts you on the right block of the street and then nurture tells you which house.
Love the retro feel. Genuinely entertaining and even kinda funny. You come of like a reasonable guy. More please.
The video will likely be very effective for those not already knowledgeable, or who have uncritically accepted the narrative that there is something problematic about discussing IQ. Looking at it, they will wonder "so what was all the fuss about?"
Wow.
I predict that the insouciant approach will enrage a certain type. I'm looking forward to the sputtering.
But tbh I'm a lot less sanguine about the potential for genetic optimization, because I don't think humans are capable of making objective decisions about these things. I'm not even sure that it would be *possible* for us to be objective in regards to what phenotype is optimal.
Seems like a majority of high-IQ people believe race is a social construct, men can get pregnant, and the media is a reliable source of truth. So, yes, I share your pessimism.
Love it.
The bell curve animation is inaccurate in dividing the Von Neumanns from the rest.
Nice jacket.
Yeah, I noticed that, but if it was rendered accurately the shaded region wouldn't be visible... 6 sigma, I'd say.
The central limit theorem (eg proven by Alan Turing) says that whatever the actual probability distribution, if you add enough of them together, the outcome becomes like a Gaussian. However, I am not sure if enough of them are added. I think with von Neumanns, there might be a thick right tail, so 6SD doesn't capture it correctly.
You know the old joke about having a face made for radio? Steve has a speaking voice made for blogging.
Only teasing—hope these videos will bring in some new readers.
Following up on my previous comment, it's pretty well accepted from studies of monozygotic twins raised apart that 50 - 80% of IQ is inherited (near the higher percentage by adulthood as environment seems to play a larger role for children). So, I think the current evidence supports the conclusion that nature is ultimately more important than nurture in determining IQ. The fact that polygenic scores don't yet have the power to identify all of the SNPs involved in influencing IQ, doesn't mean genetics isn't paramount. We wait for much larger GWAS studies... but, at present, there are influential folks at the NIH who appear fearful of what science will find, so they're busy throwing sticks into the spokes of such efforts.
Scientists do not "hone in". They home in.
Liked the video, looking forward to the 2nd part!
Steve, you dressed like you were working for IBM in 1982. Was that pre-tested with a focus group?
I have a supply of barely-used Brooks Brothers 16 - 33 white Oxford button-downs in case you need more.
Just kidding. Enjoyed the video.
I dress about the same as I did in 1984 while calling on Procter & Gamble.
Why mess with success?
Sleeves won't be long enough.
"TakiMag Article Conclusion Paragraphs" is wild.
Important to remember that none of this is remotely new.
People have noticed that other people are variously bright or dim since the dawn of consciousness. And people have known that this--along with other physical and mental characteristics--was an inherited trait that ran in families. (There was a family we'll call B--Germanic name, Cincinnati Catholics are a fairly Germanic bunch--with several kids in my parish school, and they were all on the dim side and the kids got some ribbing as a result.)
The huge racial ethnic differences weren't something most people in the world had experience with, because most people historically live with their own kind. But in the imperial cities and especially once Europeans opened up the world, many people encountered and noted the strong ethnic differences in intelligence and other personality traits. Places where two divergent races were in contact--like the American South--basically everyone was well aware of innate racial differences.
Steve's core noticing niche, only exists because a bunch of Jewish communist and/or minoritarian anti-science "scientists" (canonical example Stephen J. Gould) made war against biology, genetics, against science itself. They were/are not scientists but anti-science minoritarian propagandists. But their "findings" were endlessly repeated and promoted by fellow travelers in media. (A object lesson in the perils of letting a hostile minority group gain influence in your nation.) And then pumped out by the gianormous, post-1945 dominant, American media-academia-political-entertainment sewer pipe to pollute the rest of the Western world.
The minoritarian ideology was built by American Jews, but narratively built around the experience--slavery, Jim Crow--of American blacks, as Jewish complaints about America--Harvard quotas, the Golfocaust--while exciting to some Jews, are way too trivial to move anyone else. So minoritarians--and a whole lot of super-state intervention, grift and comfy sinecures--are narratively wedded to blacks and really invested in blacks' inferior situation being the result of evil, racist whites (like me) and really hostile to the "hey, not everyone is born with the same toolkit" explanation.
Absent, all this toxic minoritarian ideology, Steve's little bailiwick really wouldn't exist. Most everyone would agree that both people and groups differ in their native endowments. And there would be a general societal consensus both that we should provide schooling to get the most from everyone. And--perhaps with a bit more contention--that we ought to have pro-eugenic policies: the capable should have children, those who can't take care of themselves without taxpayers pitching in should not.
> Following up on my previous comment, it's pretty well accepted from studies of monozygotic twins raised apart that 50 - 80% of IQ is inherited (near the higher percentage by adulthood as environment seems to play a larger role for children). So, I think the current evidence supports the conclusion that nature is ultimately more important than nurture in determining IQ. <
There actually is no fixed percentage/answer for the nature/nurture contributions. How much is nature depends on the range of nurture you are comparing (i.e. the variety of environments in the society or sample you are comparing).
If baby Isaac Newton is proverbially "raised by wolves", he isn't going to do very well on an IQ test and "man off the street" who at least learned to read and write and do basic math will look like a genius in comparison. If your environments range out to severe nutritional stunting and/or complete lack of educational exposure for significant portions of your sample than "nurture" will dominate.
But for the contemporary United States--developed world in general--with plenty of calories and protein and universal education available for all, then yes, I think you're on target--well over half, probably close to 80% of the differences are due to nature. (When these annoying Christian do-gooders do their adopt-an-African-baby thing, the result isn't "one of their kids", but a very well fed, English speaking African.)
Furthermore we don't really have much of a handle on where the 20% "nurture" comes from. Sibling "shared environment"--playing the "baby einstein" tapes and such--seems to account for almost nothing. The "nurture" piece seems to be relatively random, perhaps simply "life path"--the intra-family dynamics and maybe peer group associations that lead a person one way or another. Or maybe even developmental biology randomness that we simply do not understand.